Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Research

Bo Li¹  Qiujian Lian¹  Tianze Liu¹  Tongjiang Chen¹  Chang Liu²  Miao Wang³  Zhiwei Wang³  Changli Xu⁴  Fengmei Chen⁵  Suchi Qiao⁵ 

[1] Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 200433, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 200433, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, The 900th Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force, 350025, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 200433, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated to the Naval Military Medical University, 201805, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 200433, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated to the Naval Military Medical University, 201805, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;The fifth Outpatients Department, The 980th Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force, 050083, Shijiazhuang, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated to the Naval Military Medical University, 201805, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;

关键词: ACL reconstruction;    Proprioception;    Artificial ligament;    LARS;    Sports medicine;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-022-06019-9

 received in 2022-05-06, accepted in 2022-11-23,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundTo compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS).Material and methodsForty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles.ResultsJPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method.ConclusionACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1

12888_2022_4392_Article_IEq3.gif